Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 9:08 AM
Sun Nov 8
10 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/15/09
Cats rule everything around me. #trendwatch
10/14/09
10/14/09
it is pretty much the opposite of civilization
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
You can't take it with you, after all.
10/14/09
If "it" includes today's seasonal allergy attack, I take comfort in that.
10/14/09
Only when I'm not sleeping.
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
Only under the arbitrary conditions under which his office was created. Of course, those conditions included "populist sentiment that could be easily satiated because Americans don't read." So how about we stop paying that asshole tax dollars to sit around and provide political cover?
10/14/09
With regard to those companies still under TARP, I think he is doing more than just providing political cover. Whether or not he is an "asshole," I dunno.
10/14/09
Regulations of CEO pay have passed Congressional and SCOTUS scrutiny before in the Clinton era with respect to salary limitations.
I agree that there are huge constitutional/legal implications, and the TARP connection is a paper-thin justification for keeping that bureaucrat around. The one guy the pay czar might have had a chance at (Andy Hall, of Citigroup/Phibro/Castle-owning fame) got "spun off" in a bullshit holding-company deal and is still pocketing 100M. It's toothless legislation, meaningless bureaucracy, all for the sake of political cover.
10/14/09
The TARP connection is not a paper-thin justification to me. It makes perfect sense that companies receiving billions in TARP funds should rein in their executive compensation. It would have worked better had Bush came up with the pay czar idea when the funds were first distributed so companies like AIG cannot use this pre-existing contract excuse, but better late than never. You really think these TARP companies should be able to pay whatever they want to their executives?
10/14/09
Only in rare cases do TARP warrants or preferred equity constitute a majority voting position. Even then, though, most shareholders lack "say on pay" and have to rely on the questionable advocacy on boards. Obama should have saved all this Pay Czar nonsense and passed corporate structure laws that give ownership - IE, shareholders - real control over compensation decisions. Similar statutes are modestly effective in other nations, certainly more so than the ineffectual nose-picker Czar that got trotted out in front of the American public.
10/14/09
But suffice it to say that drafting such legislation and getting it through Congress could take many, many months if not years. A pay czar was a quick and easy way to get a hold of exec comp on TARP companies NOW. And my cap argument had to do with independent companies. Here, as a quid pro quo for receiving some TARP funds, these companies agreed to be subject to exec comp restrictions. Is it perfect? No. Is it more than a figurehead position? I absolutely think so.
10/14/09
"Caveat emptor" shouldn't apply to stocks - shareholders should have control over how their equity is distributed. Boards have proven to be an ineffective solution and those structural decisions should be mandated by the Federal Government.
Agreed that such legislation would have taken time. But the Pay Czar is publicly perceived as an authority on compensation decisions, has nebulous power, and simply incentivizes capital-starved banks to prioritize repayment over core business functions. Like lending, which was the whole point of TARP in the first place! All of that political capital was wasted on an ineffectual bureaucrat who was silent on Andy Hall's corporate structure shell game. I'd lay wager that he'll also be silent during this year's festival of greed at AIG and Citigroup because he doesn't have any power.
Get the ball rolling on Say on Pay. I say that as an investor and a bank employee!
10/14/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09